Harry Frankfurt's Theory of Bullshit: the basics

Take three people: the "straight shooter," the liar and the bullshitter.

What separates the straight shooter and the liar from the bullshitter? The relevance of what they believe to be true to what they are saying.

The straight shooter tries to communicate a true belief. The liar constructs a lie based on their true belief as well.

The bullshitter communicates without concern for truth or falsehood.

Here is a perfect example of the platonic Frankfurtian bullshit artist, Donald Trump, at work: 

Mr. Trump liked to tell guests that the nursery rhyme-themed tiles in the room were made by a young Walt Disney. 

“You don’t like that, do you?” Mr. Trump would say when he caught Mr. Senecal rolling his eyes. The house historian would protest that it was not true.  

“Who cares?” Mr. Trump would respond with a laugh.

A weaker example (but with higher stakes): 

Ted Cruz can be easily attacked without resorting to bullshit. Yet on the day of the Indiana primary, Trump maintained that Ted Cruz's father was "with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death, before the shooting" of JFK. This is, to put it mildly, an unsubstantiated claim. Trump doesn't know whether it's true or false. And he doesn't care. 

I encourage anyone reading this to check out On Bullshit. It's a short and entertaining read and has helped me understand present-day problems with discourse.

The 1st Amendment Establishment Clause, its violations and its enemies

• Justice Hugo Black: In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
• Pick a founding father and you'll find a similar expression of views. 
• James Madison: a  practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
• Based on the above, "In God we Trust" shouldn't be codified by law as a national motto nor should it be on our coins. The history of this practice is recent and rooted in wartime paranoia and it has continued support among the current political party that seems to oppose any "wall of separation."

• I'm going to defend my views against some anticipated objections:

Unforeseen Consequences

This is what happens when you don't think your foreign military adventures through. 

Let's look further back in time: 

Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iran's secular and democratically elected leader, was overthrown in a 1953 coup orchestrated by the UK and the U.S., who then propped up a secular but undemocratically elected and autocratic regime whose excesses led to the rise of an unsecular, undemocratically elected autocratic regime in opposition to U.S. interests. America soon threw its support behind an secular, undemocratically elected autocratic regime at war with Iran . . . 



. . . who became an adversary and whose demise - in addition to the human and financial costs involved in bringing it about - helped lead to the advent of the Islamic State as described in the first link.

The Constitution trumps The Declaration of Independence (which people should quit invoking.)

Some people quote the Declaration of Independence to make claims about what the Founders of this nation valued and thus the character of this nation's fundamental values.

These people should stop. The only part of the Declaration that had force of law was the declaration that the U.S.A. was coming into being. All the other words were, to put it bluntly, unnecessary. 

On the other extreme, every word of the U.S. Constitution is law - "the supreme law of the land." As soon as it came into existence, it rendered the Declaration a historical artifact. 

If someone tries to support their political views by referring to the Declaration - particularly when it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution - don't let them. 

Hoist on its own "evenhandedness"

I feel like the (ugh, hate the phrase) "mainstream media's" general unwillingness to identify lies as such outside of the editorial pages/shows over the 2K's is finally coming around in a way it doesn't like. If the NyTimes presents birther screaming as a tenable point of view (even if just by implication/omission) it shouldn't be surprised when candidates feel no obligation to substantiate any assertions. 

http://www.nytimes.com/.../candidates-stick-to-script-if...

Candidates Stick to Script, if Not the Truth, in 2016 Race

NYTIMES.COM|BY MICHAEL BARBARO

The Founding Fathers didn't have pistols or assault rifles

I grew up in the South, bird hunting and all that stuff. Yeah, it's a part of the culture - in that many rural homes will have a shotgun or two and maybe a single shot hunting rifle.

Any gun that you can conceal on your person or get more than three shots off without reloading is a person-killing device. I'll say it - I don't think handguns should be available to the general public, let alone assault rifles. If you think having a mass-murder machine is part of your regional or national heritage then you're wrong. In the 1780's you could get off a shot every 15 seconds if you were a fast reloader.

P.S. - If you're worried about the federal government dominating you then demand more transparency in its operations and accountability from its officials. You're not going to beat it militarily, not even with a well regulated militia. 

Kim Davis

Since around 1995 - maybe before (I know, I know 1861) - the current unholy, unconservative, unrepublican coalition on our country's right political wing has rejected the legitimacy of government whenever government processes - elections, laws, judicial rulings - don't go their way. Government shutdowns, Clinton impeachment, Obama birth certificate fiasco, and then this nonsense: I can't imagine someone being dumb enough to cite the First Amendment in defense of failing to execute their duties as an elected official but now I don't have to.

Kim Davis clearly didn't feel that the Rowan County Clerk's office was, to quote Kennedy's 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a "great office that must" not "be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group."

If I remember correctly, those Houston Protestant Preachers were worried about Kennedy carrying the Pope's water. What's strange about today's brand of pan-Protestant-evangelicals is that they don't know whose water they're carrying. In lieu of a Pope they heed a miasmic echo chamber of politico-religious hucksters, nuts and verses whose incoherence is a model for its adherents. The Vatican knew it all along: If you let Kim Davis interpret the Bible it'll mean whatever the hell she wants it to.